Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial
Authors: H. Tang, H. Wang, Y. Fang, J.Y. Zhu, J. Yin, Y.X. Shen, Z.C. Zeng, D.X. Jiang, Y.Y. Hou, M. Du, C.H. Lian, Q. Zhao, H.J. Jiang, L. Gong, Z.G. Li, J. Liu, D.Y. Xie, W.F. Li, C. Chen, B. Zheng, K.N. Chen, L. Dai, Y.D. Liao, K. Li, H.C. Li, N.Q. Zhao, L.J. Tan
Journal: Annals of Oncology (2022)

•The CMISG1701 trial assessed the safety and efficacy of nCRT versus nCT followed by MIE for locally advanced bulky ESCC.•The nCRT followed by MIE strategy could not improve survival significantly compared with the nCT strategy.•The best strategy of neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced bulky ESCC remains a pending issue. BackgroundNeoadjuvant therapy is recommended for locally advanced esophageal cancer, but the optimal strategy remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) followed by minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).Patients and methodsEligible patients staged as cT3-4aN0-1M0 ESCC were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to the nCRT or nCT group stratified by age, cN stage, and centers. The chemotherapy, based on paclitaxel and cisplatin, was administered to both groups, while concurrent radiotherapy was added for the nCRT group; then MIE was carried out. The primary endpoint was 3-year overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03001596).ResultsA total of 264 patients were eligible for the intention-to-treat analysis. By 30 November 2021, 121 deaths had occurred. The median follow-up was 43.9 months (interquartile range 36.6-49.3 months). The overall survival in the intention-to-treat population was comparable between the nCRT and nCT strategies [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-1.18; P = 0.28], with a 3-year survival rate of 64.1% (95% CI 56.4% to 72.9%) versus 54.9% (95% CI 47.0% to 64.2%), respectively. There were also no differences in progression-free survival (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59-1.16; P = 0.27) and recurrence-free survival (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.71-1.60; P = 0.75), although the pathological complete response in the nCRT group (31/112, 27.7%) was significantly higher than that in the nCT group (3/104, 2.9%; P < 0.001). Besides, a trend of lower risk of recurrence was observed in the nCRT group (P = 0.063), while the recurrence pattern was similar (P = 0.802).ConclusionsNCRT followed by MIE was not associated with significantly better overall survival than nCT among patients with cT3-4aN0-1M0 ESCC. The results underscore the pending issue of the best strategy of neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced bulky ESCC. Neoadjuvant therapy is recommended for locally advanced esophageal cancer, but the optimal strategy remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) followed by minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Eligible patients staged as cT3-4aN0-1M0 ESCC were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to the nCRT or nCT group stratified by age, cN stage, and centers. The chemotherapy, based on paclitaxel and cisplatin, was administered to both groups, while concurrent radiotherapy was added for the nCRT group; then MIE was carried out. The primary endpoint was 3-year overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03001596). A total of 264 patients were eligible for the intention-to-treat analysis. By 30 November 2021, 121 deaths had occurred. The median follow-up was 43.9 months (interquartile range 36.6-49.3 months). The overall survival in the intention-to-treat population was comparable between the nCRT and nCT strategies [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-1.18; P = 0.28], with a 3-year survival rate of 64.1% (95% CI 56.4% to 72.9%) versus 54.9% (95% CI 47.0% to 64.2%), respectively. There were also no differences in progression-free survival (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59-1.16; P = 0.27) and recurrence-free survival (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.71-1.60; P = 0.75), although the pathological complete response in the nCRT group (31/112, 27.7%) was significantly higher than that in the nCT group (3/104, 2.9%; P < 0.001). Besides, a trend of lower risk of recurrence was observed in the nCRT group (P = 0.063), while the recurrence pattern was similar (P = 0.802). NCRT followed by MIE was not associated with significantly better overall survival than nCT among patients with cT3-4aN0-1M0 ESCC. The results underscore the pending issue of the best strategy of neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced bulky ESCC.